Does CGI make horror movies not as scary ?

[Brazoo]

No... it IS a crutch for lack of skill and creativity. I can't even tell you how many films I've worked in the past 15 years, where I've asked a director on set how we were going to shoot something, and the reply was; "We're not. This will be a CG sequence..." That always meant to ME, that they couldn't figure out how to do it practically. Also, a lot of "directors" these days, are not on set guys. They prefer to make as much of the film as they can in post production, where they can sit in a dark room, where the pressure of a crew, actors and producers expecting you to make the friggin' movie isn't present. This means far more guys these days are using CG instead of practical methods.

I honestly feel that this is not only a result of inadequacy talent wise, but of the whole personal electronics, iphone, myspace, twitter, nonsense that is making this generation very socially inept when it comes to being with AND WORKING WITH actual people instead of sitting at a keyboard or staring into a cell phone.

It's really sad, but I do honestly feel that very soon, the public will revolt and realize that all these movies that are being forced down their throats are garbage, and the real cream will again rise to the top.

SC

I don't think we really disagree about this in general, but I have seen some imaginative uses of CG too.

I don't see why it can't be a totally viable creative tool in the right hands - it's just usually in the wrong hands.

[kingdom warrior]

No... it IS a crutch for lack of skill and creativity. I can't even tell you how many films I've worked in the past 15 years, where I've asked a director on set how we were going to shoot something, and the reply was; "We're not. This will be a CG sequence..." That always meant to ME, that they couldn't figure out how to do it practically. Also, a lot of "directors" these days, are not on set guys. They prefer to make as much of the film as they can in post production, where they can sit in a dark room, where the pressure of a crew, actors and producers expecting you to make the friggin' movie isn't present. This means far more guys these days are using CG instead of practical methods.

I honestly feel that this is not only a result of inadequacy talent wise, but of the whole personal electronics, iphone, myspace, twitter, nonsense that is making this generation very socially inept when it comes to being with AND WORKING WITH actual people instead of sitting at a keyboard or staring into a cell phone.

It's really sad, but I do honestly feel that very soon, the public will revolt and realize that all these movies that are being forced down their throats are garbage, and the real cream will again rise to the top.

SC

Man that's so true........as an Illustrator myself who draws and paints old school no computer at all only when it's scanned and uploaded and maybe sepia tone added to B&W art. Nothing beats pencil to paper mixing your colors ansd seeing what you get.

I hear where your coming from.
Although i do own a digital camera. I still honestly enjoy use my 35mm print film camera.....I always liked what I see is what I get. I wanna create magic in the lens not through a digital program,,,but that's me not everyone thinks that way.

Maybe that's why I'm drawn to the masters of film making guys who couldn't fake it....had to the all in camera. that for me is careful planning and knowing your craft.

I hate that it's all well, we'll just CG that scene........yeah it may look good but my brain knows better and often times than not it's distracting for me...

and you're right I feel the same about social media.....what has happened to people when you can't pick up the phone or meet up with people or just have the ability to communicate....we're raising a generation of people who have no hands on communication skills whatsoever....

[Cmonster]

It can be a crutch for a lack of skill or creativity in any genre.

No... it IS a crutch for lack of skill and creativity. I can't even tell you how many films I've worked in the past 15 years, where I've asked a director on set how we were going to shoot something, and the reply was; "We're not. This will be a CG sequence..." That always meant to ME, that they couldn't figure out how to do it practically. Also, a lot of "directors" these days, are not on set guys. They prefer to make as much of the film as they can in post production, where they can sit in a dark room, where the pressure of a crew, actors and producers expecting you to make the friggin' movie isn't present. This means far more guys these days are using CG instead of practical methods.

I honestly feel that this is not only a result of inadequacy talent wise, but of the whole personal electronics, iphone, myspace, twitter, nonsense that is making this generation very socially inept when it comes to being with AND WORKING WITH actual people instead of sitting at a keyboard or staring into a cell phone.

It's really sad, but I do honestly feel that very soon, the public will revolt and realize that all these movies that are being forced down their throats are garbage, and the real cream will again rise to the top.

SC

[Brazoo]

It's not the tools, it's the talent. In the proper hands, CGI can do incredible things and be scary. As a matter of fact, maybe it has, the only time you notice bad CGI is when it is bad.

A fair point. It's kinda like the Toupee Fallacy:
People say "I can ALWAYS tell when someone is wearing a toupee" but it excludes the times they can't tell by default. If that makes sense.

I understand why CG gets a bad rap - on some level. It can be a crutch for a lack of skill or creativity in any genre.

[mego73]

Living in the CGI age, does it seem to make horror movies not as scary ?

I dunno if it's because subconsciously i've been trained to not be scared of anything because I know CGI can do anything.

Or is it because CGI still doesn't look convincing enough to scare.

What do you think ?

Are horror movies today just not as scary ?

It's not the tools, it's the talent. In the proper hands, CGI can do incredible things and be scary. As a matter of fact, maybe it has, the only time you notice bad CGI is when it is bad.

[Adam West]

I think it really depends on what type of horror you like (and there is no one over the other). Some people are scared with graphic horror (movies like saw, etc.). I think it's a little gross but not scary. I'm more of the psychological mess with your mind horror movies. Again, one isn't superior to others, just a matter of preference.

[Brazoo]

To me personally, I can't easily even compare "The Shining", "The Exorcist" or "Rosemary's Baby" to something like "Saw".

Maybe if you're comparing it to "The Texas Chainsaw Massacre", "The Hills Have Eyes" or "Halloween" that argument would work for me - but then in those cases the directors had to find ways around the censors - so it's hard to know how much they were holding back for effect or their own personal taste, and how much they were just holding back so they could release their films.

For my money "Saw" beats a lot of the "classic" 80s slasher films I loved and grew up with.

And recent horror movies like "Irreversible" and "Martyrs" are very graphic, but are also really effective, and really stretching the genre to another level of sophistication in my mind.

[kingdom warrior]

No. They are not.

I've never seen anything more scary than "The Shining", "The Exorcist" or "Rosemary's Baby", but then again Kubrick, Friedkin and Polanski are real directors. The Eli Roth's of today's horror crowd, make torture porn garbage. The only thing scary about those films is that people actually watch them or care.

SC

"Torture Porn" that's the words i was looking for earlier glad you said it.....total agreement with you.

[Brazoo]

Those movies were great, no question that the 70s in general there was a perfect storm of talent and interesting projects being made - and a really high quality movies resulted.

But in terms of "scary" it's a little hard for me to judge movies I saw as a kid to movies I see now all together. The news scares me now - ghosts and the devil, not so much. Know what I mean?

[Gorn Captain]

No. They are not.

I've never seen anything more scary than "The Shining", "The Exorcist" or "Rosemary's Baby", but then again Kubrick, Friedkin and Polanski are real directors. The Eli Roth's of today's horror crowd, make torture porn garbage. The only thing scary about those films is that people actually watch them or care.

SC

In total agreement here.
Just compare the two versions of the Haunting.
The original showed almost nothing, but was scary as hell. The new version threw a ton of effects at you, and felt totally ineffective.

They should have spent their money on a good director/writer, and not on the FX budget.

Movies like Saw mean nothing to me. They think more is better. It's not. Unless you want to make a comedy.

[Gorn Captain]

The more "on-set" the effect is achieved, the better it looks, the more real it feels.
Once they make CG "perfect", I might be convinced, but for now, a lot of the times it seems like a cartoon effect, taking away from the visceral effect it was meant to achieve.
Nothing like a decent prosthetic and a bucket of blood, is what I say....

[Cmonster]

Are horror movies today just not as scary ?

No. They are not.

I've never seen anything more scary than "The Shining", "The Exorcist" or "Rosemary's Baby", but then again Kubrick, Friedkin and Polanski are real directors. The Eli Roth's of today's horror crowd, make torture porn garbage. The only thing scary about those films is that people actually watch them or care.

SC

[Brazoo]

Yeah - I think CG or old school rubber suits it's a matter of showing too much.

As a general rule horror is always scarier in the mind - so "Jaws" showed less and messed people up a lot more. No one cares what the shark looks like at the end when we get a good look at it - even though it's not very realistic - because by that point the psychological effect had taken hold.

[ctc]

>What do you think ?

I think it's you.... and a zillion other people. There were a lot of unconvincing effects BEFORE CGI; but us oldsters were climatized to accept them 'cos we were exposed to that style during our formative years. When we see newer effects we associate 'em with them young whippersnappers, and those video games they play too much of that're turning their brains to mush, and it's not REAL effects 'cos ANYBODY can push a button....

Ultimately it's more what you do with it, but effects sometimes make folks lazy. It's too easy to fall back on the already established methods, designs, and setups; rather than making new ones. But old school effects did the same; look how may Godzilla, Alien and Dracula clones we had back in the day.

Don C.

[kingdom warrior]

It comes down to story and how one tells it.......you can put hundreds of CG shots but if there is no air of suspense no set up, Then there is no scare factor. Good horror is putting the watcher or reader in a place they Fear of ever being in.....

Also giving them the goods, the money shot has made many movie goers numb to Horror movies. Older Hollywood movies messed with your mind more because they would not show you straight Horror they would do everything off camera........